March 19, 2006

Move To Limit Military Funeral Protests

I am not supportive of this.

States have been passing laws regarding funeral protests by the reprehensible blasphemers of the Lord's name from Westboro Baptist (sic) Church (sic), the family cult bred by Fred Phelps. I've not been ver supportive. But now there is a move to make the ban a federal one -- and I really have to object.

A Michigan congressman will introduce federal legislation to block protests during military funeral services in response to a Kansas churchÂ’s continued demonstrations at servicemembersÂ’ burials.

Rep. Mike Rogers said he wonÂ’t officially submit the bill until later this month, but colleagues in Congress have already scheduled a hearing in early April and pledged their support for the measure.

The proposal would prohibit protests an hour before or after a funeral at any national cemetery, and force protesters back at least 500 feet from the grieving family. Penalties for violations still need to be worked out.

“When you go to a funeral, it’s difficult enough to show up and pay your respects to someone who died for their country without getting jeered, taunted and harassed,” said Rogers, a Republican. “There’s a difference between free speech and hateful, harassing speech.”

On Thursday, Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., introduced similar legislation in the Senate, creating a 300-foot buffer zone and making violations punishable by up to five years in prison. Bayh’s bill would apply to “all funerals for soldiers who were killed in active duty service.”

There is no reason to make this a federal issue -- such regulatiosn bvelong more properly on the state and local level, if they are to be passed at all. What, are we going to have the FBI out enforcing these bans? More to the point, why should such a ban be limited to military funerals? After all, why shouldn't it include the funerals of dead gay folks targetted by the Phelps family of primitives? Why shouldn't it include ANY funeral, if this is truly a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction and not simply legislation targetted at the message?

H/T Jawa Report, Stop the ACLU, Bluto, Vince, Kerfuffles)

Posted by: Greg at 11:37 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 363 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Greg - I tend to agree with you about limiting anyone's speech, even hate speech. I do not agree with Representative Mike Rogers' statement "There’s a difference between free speech and hateful, harassing speech." What that really means is that "free speech" will become only the speech we approve of, and then there will no longer exist "freedom of speech". Perhaps if this law were guaranteed to apply to only military funerals of active duty soldiers it would be a bit more palatable. My first reaction, as is yours, is that this is not a good idea.

Posted by: Neddy at Mon Mar 20 02:17:40 2006 (sVaUO)

2 Strangely, your suggestion makes me even less comfortable with the idea -- and I say that as the son of a career military officer who did multiple tours in Vietnam when I was a kid.

The other problem is this -- if you limit it to the funeral, what happens when they show up at the wake or the rosary? Would a funeral in a funeral home be included, or would it have to be in a church? What about the burial at the cemetary? What about the funeral luncheon in the church hall or at the family's home or at a local restaurant (wherever it is held -- I've been to all three)? Suddenly you get into definitional questions.

And if military personnel, why not police, firefighters, or politicians? These pathetic creeps showed up for Reagan's funeral (my he rest in peace), and will probably show for Carter's or Clinton's funeral (may they both be many years from now!).

I can find no line that works for me.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at Mon Mar 20 11:50:18 2006 (wrBMJ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
8kb generated in CPU 0.0064, elapsed 0.0131 seconds.
21 queries taking 0.0092 seconds, 31 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
[/posts]